nightlight
2016-10-22 18:16:20 UTC
An interesting article turned up recently on a medical site revealing an often suppressed little fact that among people diagnosed with lung cancer, only 11% are current smokers.
https://www.verywell.com/former-smokers-at-risk-for-lung-cancer-decades-later-3971884
(a) If smoking had no relation with lung cancer at all, one would expect smokers to be equally represented among lung cancer patients as in general population.
(b) If smoking were causing lung cancer, one would expect more smokers among those diagnosed with lung cancer than in general population.
(c) If smoking were protective against LC, one would expect fewer smokers among diagnosed LC cases than in general population.
The scientific findings, such as the above, demonstrate that the option (c), the protective role of tobacco smoke against LC, is the case. And this protective effect is pretty substantial too -- active tobacco smoking reduces the odds of lung cancer in half. In fact there were little publicized scientific papers long before this, hypothesizing based on epidemiological data on diagnosed lung cancers, as to why does it appear that quitting smoking is triggering lung cancers.
This epidemiological result is also harmonious with numerous animal experiments, where tobacco smoke is found to be strongly protective against lung cancers (such as those induced by radiation), as well as being neuroprotective and life-extending (by 20%).
For example in one little publicized experiment from 1960s with dogs exposed to radon (a well known and very potent lung carcinogen), 7 times fewer smoking dogs got lung cancer than non-smoking dogs. The researchers speculated that perhaps the extra mucus in smoking dogs had shielded their lung cells from radon. But similar protective results were found in many other animal experiments over decades on other animals (mostly various rodents) and using other lung carcinogens -- typically by the time all non-smoking animals have died off, there were still about half the smoking animals, well and alive, happily puffing away in their cages.
As result of such "paradoxes", the more recent animal research of the hypothesis that inhalation of tobacco smoke may cause lung cancer, has come up with "recovery period" which is a euphemism for forcible quitting in the smoking group after heavy smoking till late middle age equivalent. Only through that perversely named "recovery period" (that would make Dr. Mengele blush in envy) are the mercenary researchers able to cause any harm to the smoking group -- the smoking animals usually get fat and lazy quickly after the start of the "recovery", catching up with the old age diseases and the mortality rates of the non-smoking group (instead of remaining thinner and sharper, with 20% longer lifespans that the "healthy" living non-smoking animals).
For references scientific papers and discussion of the above facts, see links in this post in leading life-extension & nootropic forum Longecity:
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/61248-the-intelligent-smoker-what-should-a-smoker-take-to-nullify-harm/#entry564686
That is quite similar to what numerous ex-smokers report after quitting (in uncensored media) -- e.g. see this thread (with 989 posts!) titled
"Quit smoking a year ago - sick ever since!".
http://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/quit-smoking-a-year-ago-sick-ever-since
No wonder big pharma is investing billions in suppressing the ancient medicinal plant tobacco, by producing and peddling antismoking junk science, as well as by buying antismoker laws and regulations -- these poor duped folks who relied on this ancient panacea become excellent lifelong customers of the big pharma right after quitting, joining the hundreds of millions of others who were scared away by pharma propaganda from ever enjoying its potent medicinal benefits.
In contrast I enjoy worry free the health benefits of this ancient miracle medicine, smoking about 2+ packs/day of hand made non-filtered cigarettes (using natural, additive free tobacco, wrapped in the thin classical cigarette paper instead of toxic fire retardants soaked paper in commercial junk cigarettes aka FSC).
As result I haven't visited doctors or used any pharmaceuticals since 1991, which is ever since I left my parents' home with both parents medical doctors, where I grew up overmedicated and sickly child.
https://www.verywell.com/former-smokers-at-risk-for-lung-cancer-decades-later-3971884
(a) If smoking had no relation with lung cancer at all, one would expect smokers to be equally represented among lung cancer patients as in general population.
(b) If smoking were causing lung cancer, one would expect more smokers among those diagnosed with lung cancer than in general population.
(c) If smoking were protective against LC, one would expect fewer smokers among diagnosed LC cases than in general population.
The scientific findings, such as the above, demonstrate that the option (c), the protective role of tobacco smoke against LC, is the case. And this protective effect is pretty substantial too -- active tobacco smoking reduces the odds of lung cancer in half. In fact there were little publicized scientific papers long before this, hypothesizing based on epidemiological data on diagnosed lung cancers, as to why does it appear that quitting smoking is triggering lung cancers.
This epidemiological result is also harmonious with numerous animal experiments, where tobacco smoke is found to be strongly protective against lung cancers (such as those induced by radiation), as well as being neuroprotective and life-extending (by 20%).
For example in one little publicized experiment from 1960s with dogs exposed to radon (a well known and very potent lung carcinogen), 7 times fewer smoking dogs got lung cancer than non-smoking dogs. The researchers speculated that perhaps the extra mucus in smoking dogs had shielded their lung cells from radon. But similar protective results were found in many other animal experiments over decades on other animals (mostly various rodents) and using other lung carcinogens -- typically by the time all non-smoking animals have died off, there were still about half the smoking animals, well and alive, happily puffing away in their cages.
As result of such "paradoxes", the more recent animal research of the hypothesis that inhalation of tobacco smoke may cause lung cancer, has come up with "recovery period" which is a euphemism for forcible quitting in the smoking group after heavy smoking till late middle age equivalent. Only through that perversely named "recovery period" (that would make Dr. Mengele blush in envy) are the mercenary researchers able to cause any harm to the smoking group -- the smoking animals usually get fat and lazy quickly after the start of the "recovery", catching up with the old age diseases and the mortality rates of the non-smoking group (instead of remaining thinner and sharper, with 20% longer lifespans that the "healthy" living non-smoking animals).
For references scientific papers and discussion of the above facts, see links in this post in leading life-extension & nootropic forum Longecity:
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/61248-the-intelligent-smoker-what-should-a-smoker-take-to-nullify-harm/#entry564686
That is quite similar to what numerous ex-smokers report after quitting (in uncensored media) -- e.g. see this thread (with 989 posts!) titled
"Quit smoking a year ago - sick ever since!".
http://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/quit-smoking-a-year-ago-sick-ever-since
No wonder big pharma is investing billions in suppressing the ancient medicinal plant tobacco, by producing and peddling antismoking junk science, as well as by buying antismoker laws and regulations -- these poor duped folks who relied on this ancient panacea become excellent lifelong customers of the big pharma right after quitting, joining the hundreds of millions of others who were scared away by pharma propaganda from ever enjoying its potent medicinal benefits.
In contrast I enjoy worry free the health benefits of this ancient miracle medicine, smoking about 2+ packs/day of hand made non-filtered cigarettes (using natural, additive free tobacco, wrapped in the thin classical cigarette paper instead of toxic fire retardants soaked paper in commercial junk cigarettes aka FSC).
As result I haven't visited doctors or used any pharmaceuticals since 1991, which is ever since I left my parents' home with both parents medical doctors, where I grew up overmedicated and sickly child.